Background
Armando Jesus Ramirez appealed from the 221st District Court in Montgomery County, Texas, in Trial Cause No. 22-01-01095. The memorandum opinion states that on June 14, 2022, the trial court sentenced Ramirez on an indictment for aggravated robbery. The opinion does not describe the underlying offense, the terms of any plea agreement, the sentence imposed, or any issue Ramirez intended to raise on appeal.
On July 22, 2026, Ramirez filed an undated notice of appeal. The District Clerk then sent the notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification to the Ninth Court of Appeals. The certification had been signed on June 14, 2022, the same date the opinion gives for Ramirez’s sentencing.
The certification stated that the case was a plea-bargain case and that the defendant had no right of appeal. The court’s later action therefore concerned the appellate record’s certification of Ramirez’s right to appeal, rather than the merits of the aggravated-robbery prosecution or any challenge to the conviction or sentence.
The Court’s Holding
On August 18, 2026, the court notified the parties that it would dismiss the appeal unless Ramirez established that the trial court’s certification was incorrect. The opinion expressly states that none of the parties responded to that notice. Thus, the record before the court did not include a response from Ramirez demonstrating that the certification was wrong.
The court dismissed the appeal because the record lacked a certification showing that Ramirez had the right of appeal. It cited Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) and 43.2(f) in support of that disposition. The opinion’s stated basis is the absence of the required showing in the appellate record after the court’s notice and the parties’ failure to respond.
The court did not address the merits of the aggravated-robbery case, decide whether the conviction or sentence was correct, or announce a broader rule about every plea-bargain appeal. Its holding was tied to this record: the certification supplied by the trial court did not establish a right of appeal, and Ramirez did not establish that the certification was incorrect after being given an opportunity to do so. The opinion concludes, “APPEAL DISMISSED.”
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed Ramirez’s appeal because the record lacked a certification showing that he had the right of appeal.
- The trial court’s June 14, 2022 certification identified the matter as a plea-bargain case and stated that the defendant had no right of appeal.
- Before dismissing, the appellate court notified the parties on August 18, 2026 that dismissal would follow unless Ramirez established that the certification was incorrect; no party responded.
- The court cited Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) and 43.2(f), and it did not reach any merits issue concerning the aggravated-robbery conviction or sentence.
Why It Matters
The disposition underscores the practical importance of the trial court’s certification in a Texas criminal appeal arising from a plea-bargain case. Here, the certification did not establish a right of appeal, and the appellate court gave Ramirez notice and an opportunity to show that the certification was incorrect. When no party responded, the court dismissed on the record before it.
For attorneys, the opinion is a reminder to examine the certification and respond to a court’s notice questioning the right to appeal. The decision is expressly a memorandum opinion marked “Do Not Publish,” and its reasoning is limited to the certification problem and procedural history described above. It should not be read as a merits ruling on aggravated robbery, a determination about the validity of any plea, or a universal statement that every defendant in a plea-bargain case lacks appellate rights.